Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO

52 ITR 524Supreme Court of India1964#1636 most cited

What is Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO authority for?

A state road transport corporation, though state-owned, is a separate legal entity from the State. Its income is distinct from the income of the State and is not exempt from income tax under Article 289 of the Constitution of India.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO · 52 ITR 524 · Supreme Court · state corporation income · separate legal entity · income of the State · Article 289 · tax exemption for State undertakings · Section 10(20) · Section 10(46) · statutory corporation income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 10(46)Section 12Section 143(3)Section 289Section 40A(3)Section 10(20)Section 10(46A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)public servantsection 10(20)section 10(46)self occupied propertysection 24asection 80lsection 74section 39section 38section 73section 10(2)

Judgments citing Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO

City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-15, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
Section 10Section 10CSection 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 263Section 289(1)Section 4Section 5

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM) I.T.A. No. 1278/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2015-16) City and Industrial Development Principal CIT-15 Vs. Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Room No. 516 “Nirmal”, 2nd Floor 5th Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AACCC3303K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agarwal Department by Shri A. Mohan Date of Hearing 24.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of l…

Maharshtra Airport Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5735/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Maharashtra Airport Vs. Dcit Circle 3(2)(1) Room No.608, 6Th Floor Development Company Ltd., 08Th Floor, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan Centre, Tower No.1 M.K.Road, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aadcm9623M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…trade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon‟ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond all…

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Exemption) -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 5577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2Section 2(15)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5577/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Maharashtra State Road ACIT (Exemption)-2(1) Vs. Transport Corporation Room No. 507 2, Maharashtra Vahatuk 5th Floor Piramal Bhavan, D. Anandrao Nair Chambers Marg, Mumbai Central Lalbaug, Parel Mumba-400 008. Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AAACM4699J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Dave & Shri Tenzil Padvekar Department by Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing 15.5.2019 Date of Pronouncement 08.8.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This ap…

Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Reg 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3072/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3072/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S. Maharashtra Airport Dcit, Range 3(2) Mumbai. Development. Company Vs. Ltd., 8Th Floor, World Trade Centre Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm9623M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor/ Sumit Lalchandani

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor/ SumitFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya (DR)
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…trade or business”, but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon‟ble Apex Court negated the same by saying “no exception can be taken”. Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, thus observes, “Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond all…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ing paragraphs would not make any difference so far as taxation under the Income tax Act is concerned. 21. We shall now refer to some of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO (52 ITR 524), which are relevant here:- "It may be that the statute under which a notification has been issued constituting the appellant Corporation may provide expressly or by necessary implication that the income derived by the Corporation from its trading activity would be the income of the State. The doctrine of separate identity or personality of the co…

Prl Commr of Income Tax, Tirupati, Chittoor Dist vs. V Dwarakanath Reddy, Chittoor

ITTA/161/2016HC Telangana27 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

ITO Corporate Ward 2, Coimbatore vs. Shri. T S R Khannaiyan, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10(38)Section 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.256 & 257/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri T.S.R. Khannaiyann, The Assistant Commissioner of 67, Avarampalayam Road, v. Income Tax, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 006. Non-Corporate Circle -2, The Joint Commissioner of PAN : AFZPK 7832 C Income Tax, Range-II, Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/R…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10(38)Section 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.256 & 257/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri T.S.R. Khannaiyann, The Assistant Commissioner of 67, Avarampalayam Road, v. Income Tax, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 006. Non-Corporate Circle -2, The Joint Commissioner of PAN : AFZPK 7832 C Income Tax, Range-II, Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/R…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10(38)Section 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.256 & 257/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri T.S.R. Khannaiyann, The Assistant Commissioner of 67, Avarampalayam Road, v. Income Tax, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 006. Non-Corporate Circle -2, The Joint Commissioner of PAN : AFZPK 7832 C Income Tax, Range-II, Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/R…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 533/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 532/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 531/IND/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 530/IND/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

M/S. Sez Indore Limted, Indore vs. The DCIT Circle -3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 206/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

M/S. Sez Indore Limted, Indore vs. The DCIT Circle -3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 205/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

M/S. M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, Indore vs. The DCIT 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 761/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

M/S. Sez Indore Limited, Indore vs. The CIT-I, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 571/IND/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 351/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 350/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…ade or business", but, if, confined towards development, either of a new township or betterment of the functions of the local authority, 289(2) shall remain in the oblivion and shall not come into play. In this context when in the case of APRTC, reported in 52 ITR 524 (SC), the Advocate General sought to include activities in clause (2) in clause (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court negated the same by saying "no exception can be taken". Therefore, the functions and / or activity has to be seen primarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus observes, "Reading the three clauses together, one consideration emerges beyond…